Ман

Міністерство освіти і науки, молоді та спорту України Головне управління освіти і науки Черкаської облдержадміністрації Черкаське територіальне відділення МАН України

Відділення: Секція:

Особливості жіночої та чоловічої політичної риторики (на прикладі інавгураційної промови Президента Америки Барака Обами та першої промови члена Британського Парламенту- Баронеси Донаг’ю) Роботу виконала: Шара Єлизавета, учениця 11 класу Черкаської гімназії №31

Наукові керівники: Вовченко Надія Михайлівна, вчитель англійської мови І категорії; Матковська Ірина В’ячеславівна, доцент кафедри прикладної лінгвістики, кандидат філологічних наук

Черкаси – 2014

Тези: Тема: Особливості жіночої та чоловічої політичної риторики (на прикладі інавгураційної промови Президента Америки Барака Обами та першої промови члена Британського Парламенту- Баронеси Донаг’ю) Роботу виконала: Шара Єлизавета, учениця 11 класу Черкаської гімназії №31 Наукові керівники: Вовченко Надія Михайлівна, вчитель англійської мови І категорії; Матковська Ірина В’ячеславівна, доцент кафедри прикладної лінгвістики, кандидат філологічних наук Відділення: Секція:

Мета дослідження: з’ясувати особливості гендерних відмінностей в політичних промовах Актуальність: Вступ України до європейської спільноти вимагає реалізації принципу гендерної рівності в усіх сферах суспільного життя, забезпечення рівного доступу обох статей до політичних, економічних, освітніх, культурних ресурсів, до процесу прийняття рішень, які впливають на подальший розвиток суспільства. Важливого значення набуває проблема реалізації гендерного підходу в політиці. Завдання дослідження: •

дослідити поняття феномену гендеру та гендерні стереотипи в мові;

•

охарактеризувати відмінності та схожості політичної чоловічої та жіночої

риторики; •

проаналізувати лексико-граматичні особливості англомовних політичних

промов; •

визначити специфіку інавгураційної промови Президента США- Барака Обами

2013 року та першої промови Баронеси Донаг’ю в Британському Парламенті Результат: •

здійснено комплексне дослідження гендерних відмінностей в політичних

промовах;

•

визначено основні напрями ефективного використання гендерних

відмінностей політиками; •

проаналізовано

використання

історичні,

гендерних

соціальні

відмінностей

та

для

психологічні досягнення

передумови

певних

цілей

політиками. Висновки: Провівши лексико-граматичний аналіз, ми прийшли до висновку, що Президент Америки Барак Обама використовував більше жіночої риторики в своїй інавгураційній промові, ніж Баронеса Донаг-’ю –чоловічої в першій промові в Британському Парламенті. Барак Обама використовував жіночу риторику для того, щоб об’єднати аудиторію для досягнення своєї мети, для подальшої співпраці та збереження відносин, в той час як Баронеса Донаг’ю- чоловічу для презентації своїх лідерських здібностей, впевненості та домінантності та командирських якостей, переконливості та ґрунтовної підготовки до промови. Такий результат дає нам змогу стверджувати, що жіноча модель мовлення більш вигідна для використання чоловіками- політиками в своїх промовах, ніж чоловічадля жінок.

Зміст ВСТУП………………………………………………………………………………3 РОЗДІЛ 1. Поняття гендеру в мові та політиці 1.1. Поняття феномену гендеру……………………..…

1.2. Гендерні стереотипи в мові………………………………

1.3. Політична чоловіча та жіноча риторика: історія, відмінності та схожості… Висновки до розділу 1………………………………………………… РОЗДІЛ 2. Інавгураційні промови в Америці та Перші промови в Великобританії 2.1. Особливості політичних промов в англомовних країнах…….

2.2. Лексико-граматичні особливості англомовних політичних промов……...

2.3. Специфіка інавгураційної промови Барака Обами та першої промови Баронеси Донаг’ю…………………………………………………… Висновки до розділу 2…………………………………………………. ВИСНОВКИ…………………………………………………………………………. СПИСОК ВИКОРИСТАНИХ ДЖЕРЕЛ…………………………………………… ДОДАТКИ……………………………………………………………………………

Вступ Актуальність дослідження. Вступ України до європейської спільноти вимагає реалізації принципу гендерної рівності в усіх сферах суспільного життя, забезпечення рівного доступу обох статей до політичних, економічних, освітніх, культурних ресурсів, до процесу прийняття рішень, які впливають на подальший розвиток суспільства. Важливого значення набуває проблема реалізації гендерного підходу в політиці. Учені в багатьох сферах погоджуються з тим, що помітний еволюційний тиск, біологічні особливості, глобалізація, соціалізація та мультикультуралізм призвели до того, що чоловіки та жінки ставлять перед собою різні цілі для соціальної взаємодії та знаходять виразні комунікативні стилі для їх досягнення, стираються межі між жіночою та чоловічою статями. Науковці визначили два мовленнєві стилі, які асоціюються з гендерними відмінностями, як риторичне знаряддя, яке використовують як чоловіки, так і жінки для досягнення певних цілей. Чоловіче мовлення домінуюче та визначальне; воно вважається провідним в політиці. Жіноче мовлення особистісне та об’єднуюче; воно вважається занадто пасивним для політики. До двадцятого століття в США та кінця дев'ятнадцятого- в Великобританії, жінки не приймали участі в громадській діяльності. Їх (та їх мову) вважали занадто тендітними, щоб справитись з особистим та лінгвістичним навантаженням, якого вимагала політична діяльність. Стежачи за жіночою політичною комунікацією з 1920 року, можна помітити, що деякі жінки переймають чоловічу модель мовлення, традиційно притаманну політиці, але така модель сприймалась різко та критично. Інші зберігали жіночу модель мовлення, але вважались слабкими та непериконливими. Це 'подвійне переплетіння' - "тема, яка залишається актуальною для сучасних жінок, які все ще повинні боротися, щоб справитись з цими суперечливими очікуваннями". [12, с.5]

Короткий період активної діяльності жінок в політиці та лінгвістичне 'подвійне переплетіння' викликали цікавість багатьох вчених щодо використанням чоловічої риторики жінками- політиками. Однак, зважаючи на те, що чоловіча модель мовлення біологічно та історично притаманна чоловікам і завжди є вигідною в політиці, менше вчених цікавляться тим, яку роль відіграє риторика жіночого стилю мовлення в чоловічому політичному дискурсі з того часу, як жінки внесли її в політику, і чи відіграє взагалі. Вчені тільки нещодавно

почали

цікавитись

вивченням

використання

жіночої

риторики

чоловіками політиками і їх дослідження малочисельні. Об’єктом

дослідження

є:

політична

риторика

жінок

та

чоловіків.

Предмет дослідження: інавгураційна промова Президента США- Барака Обами 2008 року та перша промова члена Британського Парламенту- Баронеси Донаг’ю 2010 року. Мета дослідження: з’ясувати особливості гендерних відмінностей в політичних промовах, відокремити позитивний досвід вживання політиками мовленнєвих зразків іншої статі та визначити перспективи їх застосування політиками в майбутньому. З мети випливають такі завдання дослідження: •

дослідити поняття феномену гендеру та гендерні стереотипи в мові;

•

охарактеризувати відмінності та схожості політичної чоловічої та жіночої

риторики •

проаналізувати лексико-граматичні особливості англомовних політичних

промов •

визначити специфіку інавгураційної промови Президента США- Барака Обами

2013 року та першої промови Баронеси Донаг’ю в Британському Парламенті; Для досягнення мети та вирішення поставлених завдань був використаний такий метод

дослідження,

як

кількісний

аналіз

соціолінгвістичних

варіатив

в

Інагураційному звертання Президента США- Барака Обами 2008 року та Першій промові Баронеси Донаг’ю в Британському Парламенті 2010 року. Для більшої достовірності отриманих результатів ми обрали промови політиків, для яких англійська мова є рідною мовою спілкування.

Наукова новизна результатів цього дослідження полягає в тому, що в ньому: - здійснено комплексне дослідження гендерних відмінностей в політичних промовах; - визначено основні напрями ефективного використання гендерних відмінностей політиками; - проаналізовано історичні, соціальні та психологічні передумови використання гендерних відмінностей для досягнення певних цілей політиками. Практичне значення нашої роботи полягає в тому, що результати нашого дослідження можуть бути використані на уроках лінгвокраїнознавства та технічного перекладу в спеціалізованих школах.

РОЗДІЛ 1 Поняття феномену гендеру

1.1.

Гендер- це фундаментальна організаційна категорія нашої соціальної структури. Соціальна ідентичність людей та їхня самооцінка походять від знань про їхню свідому належність до певних соціальних груп та від усвідомленої оцінки цих груп іншими

групами.

Людина

працює

над

встановленням

та

вираженням

в

комунікативній ситуації своєї особистості, відповідно змінюючи стиль мовлення. Відмінності в гендерній поведінці, як правило, вважаються результатом виховання, а не вродженим явищем. Соціалізація дитинства

відбувається по різному для чоловіків і жінок і має,

відповідно, різний вплив на особистий стиль і поведінку. Коли діти розвиваються, сім'я, література, школа, ігри поступово спонукають їх до виконання соціальних гендерних ролей.

Tанен (1990) зазначає, що хлопчики воліють грати на вулиці, у великих ієрархічних групах. Групи мають переможців і переможених, а також лідерів, які віддають накази. Хлопчики шукають вигідного положення в групі, жартуючи і намагаючись завжди перебувати в центрі уваги. Таннен (1990) припускає, що цей досвід готує чоловіків до ділового життя. І в сучасному суспільстві, ці агресивні якості проявляються при просуванні в суспільну сферу через політику, сферу, яка забезпечує людям можливість конкурувати, переконувати, і диктувати свої вимоги.

[19, с.83] Жіноча соціалізація відрізняється. Дівчата віддають перевагу невеликим групам і зосереджуються на розвитку близькості. Їхні ігри, як правило, не мають ні переможців, ні переможених, і вони не даютьнаказів, воліючи замість цього вносити свої пропозиції. Бути популярною в групі- це головна турбота дівчини. Гайлз деталізує

розвиток

гендерної

соціалізації:

Люди

від

народження

активно

намагаються осмислити їх оточення, відносячи себе і свій світ до певної категорії.

[8, с.78]

До повноліття людина міцно закріплює гендерно- орієнтовану культурну самобутність, яка виражається, насамперед, через спілкування. Пірсон та ін. (1985) дійшли висновку, що, "чоловіки вважаються інструментальними, орієнтованими на завдання, агресивними, напористими і амбіційними. Жінки ... вважаються турботливими, емоційними і виразними, ініціаторами відносин". [15, с.122] Здається, жінки фокусують свою увагу не тільки на інформації, яка їм надається, а і на передачі інформації таким чином, щоб вона зміцнювала відносини. Чоловіки зосереджуються на інформації, яка передається у вигляді звіту і, час від часу, використовують комунікацію з метою зміцнення свого становища в групі. [19, с.148] Мовна різнобарвність, яка асоціюється з певною соціальною групою, зазвичай є помітним характерним виміром ідентичності цієї групи.

1.2. Гендерні стереотипи в мові Gender differences in language use have been studied for many years; however, general consensus has not been fully reached to date on the generalizability of the observed differences, i.e. to what extent do the differences depend on the communicative context [2,с.1].

Tannen commented that, in a mixed gender group, females are more likely to converge toward a masculine style of communication, which would lead us to expect that in Parliament women would speak in similar ways to men and that, given the pressures to conform, any change in genre is remarkable [19,с.154].

In addition, human language adaptation behavior complicates the understanding of gender differences in language use. The communication accommodation theory literature suggests that people may subconsciously adapt their language styles to converge with their communicative partners’ styles to gain social approval [8,с.46].

In our study, we’ve proved this theory by finding masculine rhetoric in the First Speech of Baronessa Donaghy made in British Parliament and some features of

feminine

language in the Inaugural Address of Barack Obama.

The purpose for which language is used also differs by gender. Tannen claims men use language to enhance their hierarchical position in a group and women use language to enhance relationships. [19,с.165] Lakoff described what she called “women’s language” suggesting that women differ from men in the usage of ten characteristics: specialised vocabulary, expletives, empty adjectives, tag questions, intonation, superpolite forms, hedges, hypercorrect grammar, and joke-telling humour [11,с.16].

The use of women’s language to establish rapport leads to the inclusion of certain characteristics in women’s discourse. Women tend to avoid conflict in communication preferring to offer suggestions rather than commands (Aries, 1987). Women tend to use language that is more animated, descriptive, open, attentive and friendly, whereas men

tend to use language that is more dominant, less expressive and more contentious (Pruett, 1989) [13,с.4].

Topics characteristically addressed by men and women also differ, suggesting that some topics are more commonly addressed by one gender than the other. Aries (1987) concluded that women focus heavily on personal issues involving disclosure of feelings, relationships, family, friends, lovers and home life more than men. Men talk little on these topics. Andrews (1987), writing on gender differences in persuasive communication, noted women focus onfamily themes and maintenance of family relationships more than men.

Crawford and Chaffin (1987) noted that males are more likely to choose the topic in a mixed gender group. Other research has suggested that women hold conversations about people and relationships, while men speak on work, money and sports (Bischoping, 1993; Leaper, 1987; Bate, 1988). [13,с.5].

Reported differences in some aspects of language use appear to be context dependent (Crawford, 1995; Kramare, 1981), or in Bakhtin’s terms, subject to “genre rules”, and poses the possibility that one reason why distinctive women’s language is not found consistently in all research is that women adapt more than men to the expectations of the setting, institution or genre in the same way as minority groups do if they wish to avoid being noticed as “different” [1,с.6].

Sociolinguists have categorized masculine speech as competitive, argumentative, antagonistic, and insulting. For example, studies have shown that men use interruptions to portray power and control, and strong expletives to demonstrate bravery and aggression.

They also use commands (Give me, I need) to show leadership, and non-inclusive pronouns (I, you, me) to exhibit dominance [12,с.8].

By contrast, biological features and evolutionary pressures cause women to be nurturing and cooperative.

Sociolinguists have characterized female language as emotional,

pleasing, supportive and conciliatory. For example, studies have proven that women use hedges (I wonder, you know), tag questions (isn’t it? Larner 10 can’t you?), and inclusive pronouns (we, us) to invite addressees into conversations. In addition, they give minimal responses to show support and attentiveness. They use suggestions (let’s) and weaker expletives (dear me, oh goodness) to maintain respect, and they weaken their statements

with adverbials (maybe, probably) and modal verbs (may, could) to maintain equality and receive approval [12,с.9].

1.3. Політична чоловіча та жіноча риторика: історія, відмінності та схожості Political speech has been an important subject for studies on gender and professional discourse. Political language has long been considered to be masculine, and female politicians have been expected to conform to this normative masculine style[4,с.9].

On August 6, 1920, after an eighty year struggle to break into the public sphere, women got suffrage in the United States. If to speak about the United Kingdom, women were prohibited from voting until the 1832 Reform Act and the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act, although it would not be until 1872 that it would become a national movement.

Yet, with the right to vote came increasing opportunities to run for office, and women faced the challenge of figuring out how to speak in public.

Campbell labeled the concept of feminine rhetoric, based on an analysis of speeches by fifteen female reformists advancing social movements from 1840 to 1920. She outlined its characteristics and suggested its function as a solution to the ‘double bind’ and a rhetorical tool for women to advance their social agendas in the public sphere. [4,с.14] Looking back through the twentieth century, many studies document women using feminine rhetoric as a tool to emphasize their feminine strengths. For example, Benze and DeClercq established that women are twice as likely as men to use feminine rhetoric to stress compassion, warmth, honesty, and morality, thereby making their perceived strengths more salient [12,с.13].

DeRosa and Bystrom showed that women used personal tone in 94 percent of their 1996 Presidential National Convention speeches, addressed the audience as peers in 69 percent, emphasized their experience through personal anecdotes in 63 percent, and used inductive reasoning in 59 percent [12,с.14].

Bystrom et al. found that female U.S. Senatorial candidates mostly used logical appeals and stressed their own accomplishments in spot ads for mixed-gender races from 1992 to 2002.The evidence is contradictory because masculine and feminine rhetorical styles are both beneficial techniques. Studies even document women combining them. For example,

although DeRosa and Bystrom found that many women gave personal and inclusive speeches using anecdotes and inductive reasoning, they also used expert references and impersonal examples[12,с.15].

As described above, masculine traits and language inherently thrive in the public realm and help fulfill political aims. Hence, men have a consistent and unimpeded rhetorical history of public persuasion dating back to ancient Greece.

To no surprise, Benze and DeClercq found that men are three times more likely than women to use masculine rhetoric as a tool because it primes their political strengths, including knowledge, leadership, experience, and toughness[12,с.17].

Indeed, men emphasize their own experiences and use deductive reasoning, exercise more logical appeals and statistical evidence, and stress their own accomplishments.

Jamieson also proposes that feminine rhetoric that fosters intimate relationships helps men politicians appear caring and credible in ways that statistics and cliché phrases cannot [12,с.18].

Most constituents judge the President’s legitimacy based on what kind of man he is, rather than the programs or acts he espouses. Thus, personal narratives move constituents to conclude that they know, like, and trust the President because they feel they have shared intimate moments with him.

Ronald Reagan effectively used personal narratives to

sidetrack charges of incipient senility by refocusing the citizens’ attention to his positive attributes: his caring and understanding nature. Self-disclosure is also useful, as some constituents even consider the President as more genuine and reliable when they feel they know him, period.

Furthermore, Huddy and Terkildsen agree that a warm politician (perceived as such from the feminine rhetoric he uses) can more effectively deal with compassionate political issues[12,с.19].

Last, according to the speech accommodation theory, a speaker can adjust his speech style to resemble that of his addressees to reduce dissimilarities between them, which helps him win approval, appear cooperative, and produce a more understandable message.

Women’s parliamentary communication style and culture also encompass women’s topic, or issue, focus. Investigating the experience and expectations of women candidates

in the 1982 Victorian state election, Sawer (1988a) found women covered the “soft” issues: child-care, equal opportunity, abortion, education, environmental, and care for the aged. More recently, as women’s numbers in Parliament have increased there has been an increase in social issues under debate (Coopers & Lybrand, 1994). In general, women are given the soft ministerial portfolios, rarely are they ministers for defence, law, or the economy (Coopers & Lybrand, 1994). In Sweden, Hedlund (1988) found that women politicians were perceived as representing the interests of women voters better than men, and that as they themselves get older, women’s interest focus changed from children to a focus on the elderly and handicapped [13,с.6].

Thus, it seems that women in Parliament will be pulled in several directions: towards the speech styles and topics engendered by their socialisation; towards the expectations of the setting and the genre of a male-dominated institution; and towards the discourse they encountered in their socialisation as adults in their professions, jobs, and the climb up the ranks of their political party.

Throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, more and more women are succeeding politics, and it is likely because they found a rhetorical style that reconciled everyone’s competing expectations. This helps them realize they are equal participants of the speaker’s decision-making process who have valued opinions and the ability to enact change [12,с.14]. Висновки до розділу 1 Дослідивши позицію науковців щодо гендерної різниці взагалі та, безпосередньо, в мовленні (зокрема, політичних промовах), ми прийшли до висновку, що: Men’s moral reasoning tended to emphasize competing rights and give primacy to the individual, while women’s moral reasoning put the emphasis on conflicting responsibilities and treated relationships as primary.

Feminine rhetoric was introduced into politics by women who were struggling to communicate and succeed in a sphere dominated by men and characterized by aggression and competition. Since, it has become a rhetorical tool that should be used by men or women to achieve many objectives necessary to prevail in politics.

In sum, scholars have termed “masculine rhetoric” as language that is useful for men to achieve the biological and social goals associated with their masculine identity, such as taking aggressive stands, initiating action, affirming expertise, handling competition, and persuading. However, these scholars have recently introduced the idea that masculine rhetoric can also be used by women who wish to complete these same endeavors (for example, in business or political settings). Therefore, masculine language is not just an expression of the masculine identity, but a rhetorical tool to achieve certain objectives.

Likewise, what scholars have termed “feminine rhetoric” is appropriate to express feelings and maintain group harmony, and parallels the soft and ornamental feminine identity. But it too is not just an expression of femininity identity or exclusive to women, but a rhetorical tool that can be used by men or women seeking to soothe, please, garner respect, and unify addressees to each other and the speaker. РОЗДІЛ 2.

2.1. Особливості політичних промов в англомовних країнах An Inaugural Address, given by the President-elect at the Inauguration Ceremony (which formally marks the beginning of his term) also accomplishes many goals beyond the primary one of accepting the oath of office of the Presidency. It serves to appreciate American values rooted in tradition, invite consideration for future guiding principles, accept the executive limits of the President position, and acknowledge subordination to the people’s will. These objectives all foster the overarching goal of uniting the citizenry and soliciting their support. [1,с.31] Presidents-elect must use Inaugurals unify the citizenry as ‘the people,’ who have been divided by a hard-fought presidential election campaign. Simultaneously, the speech becomes an opportunity to harmonize a public divided from any other circumstances.

[10,с.32-33] For example, Barack Obama used his Inaugural Address to reconcile “Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers”, “men and women and children of every race and every face[20,с.2].

First, Presidents- elect pursue unification by emphasizing shared traditions and experiences. Presidents-elect re-categorize the citizenry as Americans by reminding them

of their common suffering and common achievements in the face of challenges in the past, their membership to a united nation, and their spiritual strength capable of transcending any shallow differences. They recall great events that have defined the nation to show how fruitless are temporary material divisions in the context of a greater history, harmony and faith. [10,с.34] Speakers can fulfill these tasks by using a sincere tone, discussing shared experiences, validating audience emotions, and providing descriptive anecdotes that recall the past in a way everyone can relive in the present, which are all components of feminine rhetoric. [10,с.29,30] Second, Presidents-elect use Inaugurals to unify the audience by setting forth principles for their presidency that call upon, stress, and recommit the nation to timeless American values. They remind Americans of their loyalty to common democratic principles, and assure that as the President, they will continue to advocate them as well.

They thereby contextualize everyone’s personal ideals within the greater goal of American nationalism. Again, recollection through narrative and persuasion along moral grounds, characteristic of feminine rhetoric, should be most useful. Furthermore, the Presidents-elect propose their principles for contemplation, not as practices for action [10,с.39-41]. Therefore, inductive structure and audience empowerment, techniques of feminine language, are inclusive and useful for inviting the nation to evaluate and hopefully support the proposals.

Last, Inaugural Addresses connect the Presidents-elect to their constituents. Presidentselect understand that they were elected by and are representative of the citizenry, and are bound by its will and mercy. The citizenry must accept the President selects’ outlined principles, ratify their ascents to power, and approve their oaths. Therefore, the politicians use Inaugurals to acknowledge they understand their subservient positions and commitments to serving the people [10,с.33]. Barack Obama stated: “I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed…” manifestation of the will of a great and free people.” They also emphasize that they are joined to their constituents through shared obedience to identical national principles and laws. As Barack Obama declared, “ We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more…” [20,с.2].

Finally, the presidents-elect elicit from the people respect and trust as a leader, not by exuding superiority, but by reassuring citizens they are merely a guide, limited by the Constitution and the democratic ideals it embodies, and sure against abusing their executive powers. [10,с.42] We hypothesize that because female rhetoric is inclusive and conciliatory, it should be used to achieve these ends as well. This process requires using nurturing and sincere tons, providing moral arguments, detailing shared experiences, and encouraging the audience to evaluate government, which are characteristics of the feminine style. Since the Inaugural’s main purposes are most effectively communicated through feminine rhetoric, we hypothesize that Barack Obama will use much of it in his Inagural Address.

A First Speech is defined as: “The first speech made by a Member following his or her first election to the House … normally … during the Address in Reply debate ...There is a convention in the House that a first speech is heard without interjections or interruptions … . In return for this courtesy the Member should not be unduly provocative.” [12,с.1] The first time a newly elected MP speaks in Parliament is known as a maiden speech.

By tradition, the Member is called ahead of other MPs who may have indicated their wish to speak at the same time. A maiden speech is usually uncontroversial, fairly short and contains a tribute to the MP's predecessor and favourable remarks about the constituency.

It is also a tradition that a maiden speech is heard without interruption and for any speeches that may follow, to praise the new MP's first contribution. In the House of Lords a Member making a maiden speech will do so in a debate with a speakers' list so that the House and, in particular the next speaker, may know that conventional courtesies apply.

The maiden speech is expected to be short and uncontroversial and would not express views that would provoke an interruption. [21, с.4] In Parliament, as in society generally, there is a tension between forces for change and pressures to retain the modes of the past. On the one hand, because genres are sensitive to changes in culture, it is reasonable to expect that the presence of women will eventually influence parliamentary speech genres. Hence, women’s use of the genre -- language usage, style and topic focus -- in First Speeches might be expected to differ from that of

men although, until the percentage of women in Parliament rises, one would expect the differences to be slight as women tried consciously to adapt to established genres [18].

In preparing his or her “First Speech” a parliamentarian would seek advice and look at other examples of this genre to discover the special rules of “first speeches”: for example, that they are not interrupted - and that in deference to this rule such speeches should not be unduly controversial.

Hedlund (1988) claimed that the “culture” of women could affect their style and the issues they preferred to discuss. Hedlund also noted that the forms of discussion developed within the private sphere of the women’s culture are based on dialogue and the need to listen to the other side. This way of talking is difficult to practice in political debate[12,с.7].

Similarly, in women’s style is seen as being more consultative, accepting consensus as a win rather than a back down. For example, Baroness Donaghy stated: “ I am aware that the measure for poverty might seem like a dry academic debate to some, but if an official poverty measure is changed, it can be used as a respectable excuse for…” [17,с.2].

Ironically, this perception can create a conflict of roles for a woman in Parliament between expectations of her performance as a woman and as a politician.

Even if women did bring a particular way of speaking or communicating with them to Parliament one might expect them to be also aware of the existing political speech genre and not attempt to change it radically. They are, after all, the “new kids on the block”, the minority, and as Bakhtin notes, “one observes an extreme differentiation of speech genres and styles depending on the title, class, rank, wealth, social importance of the addressee and the relative position of the speaker” [1,с.24].

So one would expect, following Bakhtin, that women’s First Speeches would be similar to men’s, because one would not expect them to change the genre quickly or radically.

Hence, although women’s use of the genre -- language usage, style and topic focus -- in First Speeches to the House of Lords might be expected to differ from those of men at first one would expect the differences to be slight as women try consciously to adapt.

In our study we've found some evidences that these purposes are most effectively communicated through masculine rhetoric.

First, Members of Parliament use their First Speeches to justify their party’s legitimization and supporters’ faith that they are qualified to take the nomination. They must prove they are noble, wise, and fit to represent their party. Sometimes, this is accomplished using autobiography. Although biography is characteristic of feminine rhetoric, it is self-focused in this case and used to prove competence. In addition, many times they use autobiography to compare themselves with their opponents and prove they are more qualified for the job. For example, Daroness Donaghy in her First Speech says: “..for 16 years I was privileged to represent all clerical and related staff in universities in their pay negotiations, and set up national pay scales for the first time.” [17,с.2] Therefore, components of masculine rhetoric, including competitive and confident tones, references to self-expertise and experience, and mentions of their future plans should be useful. For example, Baroness Donaghy declared: “The Government have promised to maintain the target of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020, and I shall watch this with interest.” [17,с.3] Second, Members use First Speeches to assume the role of party leader– commanding, confident, and prepared. Assuming leadership means taking control of the party’s campaign, giving directions regarding how the contest will proceed, and outlining the political agenda that they will emphasize. For example, Baroness Donaghy promises: “I make a plea to this Government that more work should be done on …I look for an assurance from Ministers that that grim forecast will not be realized.” [17,с.3] Making such assertions requires using instructive language, referencing self -expertise, and emphasizing future plans, which the masculine style achieves. Accordingly, studying The First Speech of Baroness Donaghy, we have suggested that masculine rhetoric, which is confident, competitive, and commanding, is most useful for communicating these purposes. Therefore, we hypothesize that there should be more masculine rhetoric in speeches of this genre than in Inaugural Addresses.

2.3. Лексико-граматичні особливості англомовних політичних промов The first лексико- граматична одиниця we observed and analyzed in our study is questions, or expressions of inquiry that invite a reply. Questions signal that an idea is not absolute and therefore provide opportunities for collaboration. Sensibly, studies have

found that questions are more characteristic of the feminine repertoire. First, questions maintain audience involvement. They can invite listeners to participate in the conversation or at least encourage independent thought[11,с.27].

Second, questions promote equality between the speaker and audience. They demote the speaker because he maybe requesting information and showing uncertainty, or requesting an opinion and not committing to his assertion. Instead, questions empower the audience by admitting the members have information the speaker may lack, or by requesting the listeners’ approval and providing them the option to re-interpret or disagree with a statement [11,с.29].

For example, in Barack Obama’s 2008 Inaugural Address, he declares: “The question we ask today is not whether our government…, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs…”(див. Додаток 2) Therefore, we hypothesize that questions should be more prevalent in Inaugural Address. Наступні лексико- граматичні одиниці, які ми досліджували, це- іменник, числівник та артикль. З лінгвістичної точки зору, чоловіки мають тенденцію вживати більше артиклів, іменників, довгих слів та числівників (Koppel et al., 2003; Newman et al., 2008). Ці відмінності загально прийнято вважати лінгвістичними інструментами чоловіків для інструментальної мети- передачі інформації (Tannen, 1990; Newman et al., 2008), або, іншими словами, чоловіки говорять про предмети та об’єкти [2,с.1] .

We assume, Baroness Donaghy will use more іменників numbers та артиклів in her Maiden speech than Barack Obama.

The fifth category is adverbials, or words that make the ideas or proposals put forth less definite. These words, such as maybe, perhaps, and relatively minimize imposition, mitigate the force of a statement, or call for joint collaboration by alludingto the flexibility and vagueness of a belief or plan.151Accordingly, previous studies have found adverbials to be characteristic of feminine language.

Therefore, we hypothesize that Inaugural Addresses will have more of them.

The sixth лексико- граматична одиниця is modal verbs, which express the degree of possibility or necessity of a belief or event. Modal verbs convey indecisiveness and reluctance.155They mitigate commanding phrases, which allows speakers to assert their personal beliefs and wishes without being aggressive or demanding. In turn, speakers’ beliefs and wishes appear more flexible, so audiences feel they are part of the decisionmaking or opinion-forming process, and a climate of interpersonal closeness naturally generates [11,с.29].

Therefore, studies have shown that they are characteristic of feminine language and we hypothesize that more of them will be used in Inaugural Addresses.

The sevenhth category in our study is pronouns, or words that replace nouns. A higher percentage of pronouns was seen as a strong female language indicator in many previous studies (Biber, Koppel) [2,с.7]. Specifically, we looked at such pronouns as us and we, which are personal pronouns that refer to the audience and speaker as one entity. Scholars have found that feminine language incorporates more such pronouns than masculine language because they help express a relationship with listeners by inviting their participation in thought or collaboration in action. [11,с.32]Отже, за нашою гіпотезою, Барак Обама буде вживати більше таких займенників, ніж Баронеса Донаг’ю.

The second category is pronouns, such as I and you, which create distance between the speaker and audience by alluding that their positions are separate. For example, I highlights the speaker’s ownership over certain actions or ideas as well as leadership. You subordinates the audience as subservient. Scholars have found that these pronouns are more characteristic of masculine language because they create hierarchy and enforce authority. [11,с.33] Considering this literature, we speculate that First Speeches will include more of these pronouns., whereas Inaugurals will include more inclusive pronouns.

The eighth лексико- граматична одиниця is directives, or speech acts that try to get another to do something. [11,с.34] Mitigated directives solicit action in a more polite manner, by taking the form of requests and proposals for future behavior.171They hedge the force of commands. Some mitigated directives, like I ask you to join me, incorporate the language of questions, and give the audience an opportunity to reject them, thereby

establishing a more symmetrical relationship between the speaker and audience. Others, such as We could join, utilize inclusive pronouns to acknowledge the speaker and audience as cooperating agents of action, motivated by causes that will benefit them both. [11,с.35] Sensitive and collaborative, studies have affirmed that this subtype is used more by women and is more characteristic of feminine language. [11,с.35] Therefore, we predict that Inaugural Addresses should contain more mitigated directives.

The ninth лексико- граматична одиниця is verbs. Women have been found to use more verbs(Koppel et al., 2003; Newmanet al., 2008) as women are more likely to make social connections through language communication (Tannen, 1990; Newman et al., 2008). So, we suggest there will be more verbs in Inaugural Speech [2,с.1].

2.4. Специфіка інавгураційної промови Барака Обами та першої промови Баронеси Донаг’ю After analyzing the Inaugurals and Acceptances for the feminine and masculine sociolinguistic, we were able to discern whether there was more feminine rhetoric in Inaugural Addresses and more masculine rhetoric in First Speeches by analyzing the differences in percentages of each variable between the two speech types. The takeaway finding for the feminine rhetoric variables was consistent with our hypothesis: Inaugurals contained more of feminine rhetoric variables than First Speeches- of masculine rhetoric. (див. Додаток 3) Найбільша відмінність була відмічена у вживанні займенників. Той факт, що жінка-політик вжила менше займенників, ніж чоловік, вражаючий, позаяк вживання займенників розглядалось як сильний жіночий мовленнєвий показник в попередніх дослідженнях (e.g. Biber et al., 1998; Koppel et al., 2003). Вплив контексту може пояснити нижчий відсоток вживання займенників Баронесою Донаг’ю, тому що Парламентські промови зазвичай добре підготовані в формі надрукованих текстів, а зменшена кількість займенників– це загальний показник, який характеризує письмову форму. (Biber, 1988) [2,с.7]. Президент і Баронеса також відрізняються використанням різних частин мови. Баронеса вживала більше іменників, числівників, прислівників, модальних дієслів,

іменників та артиклів. Всі ці частини мови, окрім модальних дієслів, є ознаками чоловічої моделі мовлення. Президент використав більше дієслів, прикметників та займенників, всі з яких

є показниками жіночої риторики. Такий результат

суперечить дослідженням Бібера і може відображати впевненість політиків в тому, що певні риторичні інструменти протилежної статі є більш корисними для досягнення цілей під час проголошення їхніх промов. Також, ми окремо підрахували вживання таких займенників, як Us та We, I та You і отримали результат, який підтвердив нашу гіпотезу щодо цілей, з якими політики вживають їх. Займенники Us та We можуть бути самим очевидним та зрозумілим засобом для об’єднання нації задля підтримки Президента та його планів, а також спільної допомоги в їх реалізації, що так необхідно для Інагураційних звернень. В той же час, займенники I та You можуть бути самим очевидним та найбільш зрозумілим засобом для створенням спікером ієрархії та відділення себе (I), як експерта та лідера, від аудиторії (you), як від його послідовників, що так важливо при проголошенні Перших Промов у Парламенті. За результатами нашого дослідження Президент Барак Обама використав 4 із 6 лексико-граматичних

одиниць,

притаманних

жіночій

риториці

(дієслова,

прикметники, займенники, ввічливі директиви) і жодної- чоловічій. Це достатньо вагомий аргумент для того, щоб стверджувати, що жіноча риторика вігідна чоловікам- політикам. (див. Додаток 3) Баронеса Донаг’ю вжила 4 з 4 соціолінгвістичних варіатив, притаманних чоловічій риториці (числівники, прислівники, артиклі,іменники) та 2-жіночій (питання, модальні дієслова). Такий результат дає нам можливість стверджувати, що Баронеса також максимально використала елементи чоловічої риторики, при цьому ефективно вживаючи і жіночі елементи мовлення. Ми спостерігаємо приклад «подвійного переплетіння», про яке говорить Кембел. Отримані результати співпадають з більшістю висунутих нами гіпотез: Перша Промова містить 67% чоловічої риторики, в той час як Інагураційне Звернення Барака Обами- 100%-жіночої.

Alternatively, variables that went against the takeaway results did not have a significant enough impact to affect them and should not be given as much weight. This may reflect that the usage of such variables was not methodical, and that Presidents do not consider them to be useful rhetoric tools, if considering them at all, when crafting their speeches. Of course, specific words (from any category) may have been selected by the speaker or may affect the listeners subconsciously, but the results show which aspects of feminine and masculine language are more or less likely to have been methodically chosen to accomplish the different speeches’ goals.

These trends show that some aspects of feminine rhetoric are still associated with and considered useful to Inaugurals, and that some aspects of masculine rhetoric are still associated with and considered useful to the First Speeches.

Last, the data highlights that feminine rhetoric may be considered more beneficial than masculine rhetoric in politics, regardless of the speech type. Висновки до розділу 2 Дослідивши літературу про Інагураційні промови Президентів США та Перші Промови членів Британського Парламенту, ми прийшли до висновку: The politicians use Inaugurals to acknowledge they understand their subservient positions and commitments to serving the people.

Women politicians try to arouse messages in their First Speeches that help them assume leadership and tend to make them as persuasive as possible. Ми ознайомились з типовими соціолінгвістичними варіативами, притаманними жіночому та чоловічому дискурсу. Ми висунули гіпотези, основна ідея яких полягала в тому, що Президент Америки Барак Обама буде використовувати в Інагураційній Промові жіночу риторику, в той час як Баронеса Донаг’ю в Першій Промові в Британському Парламенті- чоловічу. Провівши лексико-граматичний аналіз, ми прийшли до висновку, що Президент використовував більше жіночої риторики, ніж Баронеса- чоловічої. Такий результат дає нам змогу

стверджувати, що жіноча модель мовлення більш вигідна для

використання чоловіками- політиками в своїх промовах, ніж чоловіча- для жінок.

Той факт, що Президент вжив такі соціолінгвістичні компоненти, притаманні жіночому мовлення, як дієслова, прикметники, займенники, інтенсифікатори, ввічливі директиви зі значною перевагою в порівнянні з вживанням цих самих компонентів Баронесою, підтвердив нашу гіпотезу про те, що жіноча модель мовлення використовується в Інагураційному Звертанні Президента для об’єднання нації з метою подальшого досягнення своїх цілей та кооперації, створення дружніх відносин з громадянами своєї країни (we, us, each other, our, ours, ourselves, us, we), а також спільної допомоги в їх реалізації та демонстрації поваги (let us). Вживання Баронесою Донаг’ю таких чоловічих варіатив, як числівники, прислівники, артиклі, іменники з великою перевагою, порівняно з Інагураційною Промовою Президента Америки, підтверджує нашу гіпотезу про те, що деякі аспекти чоловічої риторики корисні жінкам- політикам для підтвердження своїх лідерських здібностей- впевненості та домінантності (I, me, mine, my, myself), та командирських якостей (you, your, yours, yourself, yourselves ).

Використання

Баронесою числівників як інструментального засобу передачі інформації з великою перевагою в порівнянні з звертанням Президента підтверджує її бажання здаватись більш переконливою та ґрунтовно підготованою до виступу. ВИСНОВКИ Feminine rhetoric was introduced into politics by women who were struggling to communicate and succeed in a sphere dominated by men and characterized by aggression and competition. Since, it has become a rhetorical tool that should be used by men or women to achieve many objectives necessary to prevail in politics. Any studies that support this idea, such as this one, contribute to proving that there is a role for feminine language to be used by men in politics.

We conducted the sociolinguistic experiments to determine whether there was a role for feminine rhetoric in men politicians’ discourse and masculine rhetoric in women’s.

Sociolinguistic scholars have suggested that feminine rhetoric fosters unity, cooperation, and intimacy between speakers and addressees. We wanted to investigate whether feminine rhetoric is also considered useful when men politicians wish to unify, include, and build relationships with his audience. We hypothesized that if it is, feminine rhetoric

should be used in Inaugural Address, because this speech genre’s main purposes are to transcend differences and unify through common ideals and experiences, which scholars have suggested feminine rhetoric accomplishes. To give contrast for comparison to our findings, we also analyzed the First Speech in British Parliament, whose main purposes are the opposite: for the woman-politician to prove her expertise, display leadership, and stir competition, which scholars have suggested masculine rhetoric accomplishes. If feminine language is useful to achieve an Inaugural’s speech purposes, we proposed it should be found in Inaugurals. As a corollary experiment, we also analyzed the First Speech for masculine rhetoric, and hypothesized that it should be used in First Speeches.

To investigate our queries, we performed a quantative analysis of the First Speech of Baroness Donaghy and Inaugural Address of Barack Obama, for masculine and feminine sociolinguistic rhetoric.

Overall, our hypotheses proved correct: there was a lot of feminine rhetoric in Inaugural Address and masculine rhetoric was present in the First Speech. Some variables had a stronger affect on these trends, which implies they may be considered more effective gendered rhetorical tools for accomplishing objectives in line with the distinct speech purposes. This information illustrates which variables politicians should incorporate in their different speeches.

However, our research presents a new idea that feminine (and masculine) language can helpful rhetorical tools for achieving different political speech genres’ purposes and that feminine rhetoric, specifically, should be considered for use in political speech. Our research also reinforces the suggestions that there are many other influences affecting the use of gendered rhetoric. Determining what these other factors may be is beyond the scope of this thesis, but provides a prospect for future research.

Some of the factors are ideas that have been put forth as theories, and our hope is that this research will prompt others to test these theories. Other political offices and speech types may provide useful case studies.

СПИСОК ВИКОРИСТАНИХ ДЖЕРЕЛ 1.

Bakhtin, M.N. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (V.W. Mc Gee,

Trans.). (C. Emerson, M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

2.

USA

Bei Yu (2013) Language and gender in Congressional speech: Syracuse University,

3.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating

Language Structure and Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

4.

Campbell, Man 1989.; Dow.

5.

Coopers & Lybrand. (1994). Women and Parliaments in Australia and New

Zealand. Report for the Commonwealth-State Ministers Conference on the Status of Women. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

6.

Elshtain, Jean Bethke (1984) “Reclaiming the Socialist-Feminist Citizen”,

Socialist Review74 (14): 23-30 7.

Gidengil, Elisabeth (1995) “Economic Man-Social Woman? The Case of the Gender

Gap in Support for the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement,” Comparative Political Studies28(3): 384-408.

8.

Giles, H. and Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and Consequences.

Florence, Y: Wadsworth Publishing.

9.

Gilligan, Carol (1982) In A Different VoiceCambridge, MA.: Harvard University

Press.

10.

Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Presidents Creating the

Presidency: Deeds Done in Words (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008) Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York, NY: Harper Colophon Books.

11.

Lindsay R. Larner (2009). The Role of Feminine Rhetoric in Male Presidential

Discourse: Achieving Speech Purpose: University of Pennsylvania 12.

Mary R. Power, Michelle Berardone (1998). Speaking in Parliament : first speeches

of men and women: Bond University 13.

O’Neill, Brenda (1995) “The Gender Gap: Re-Evaluating Theory and Method,’ in

Sandra Burt and Lorraine Code, eds., Changing Methods: Feminists Transforming PracticePeterborough: Broadview, 327-56.

14.

Pearson, J. C., Turner, L. H., & Todd-Mancillas, W. (1985). Gender and

communication. (2nd Ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown.

15.

Pratto, Felicia, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Jim Sidanius (1997) “The Gender Gap:

Differences in Political Attitudes and Social Dominance Orientation.”

16.

Phelan, Shane (1990) “Feminism and Individualism,” Women & Politics 10(4): 1-18

17.

Joanna Davies and Louisa Bentley (2010). Maiden Speeches: The House of Lords

Library note: 2-4 18.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation.

New York, NY: HarperCollins.

19.

20.

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/maiden-speech/ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?

pagewanted=all&_r=0

ДОДАТОК А. Перша промова Баронеси Донаг’ю в Британському Парламенті Baroness Donaghy, 22 July 2010, Debate on Poverty My Lords, since I was introduced on 1 July, I have been overwhelmed by the warmth of my welcome and the generosity of noble Lords on all sides of the House in sharing their experiences with me. I am grateful, too, for the dedication and friendliness of the staff, who seem to be able to read my mind when I am uncertain about geographical direction or procedure. I thank them most sincerely for their care and support. As a former chair of ACAS, my first instincts are to form a consensus based on bringing the parties together. I am not sure whether

those skills will be useful in this House. I know from experience that, when the going gets tough, it is difficult to promote agreement between employer and workers but that it is infinitely more difficult on occasion to achieve agreement among members of the same side. If the coalition Government were ever in need of mediation skills, I would be available.

ACAS’s contribution to the modernisation of public services was to recognise that the world of work was not just about collective bargaining but about the millions of individuals, both employers and employees, needing advice. Radical changes were achieved with the involvement and consent of the staff and trade unions in ACAS, and without the demotivating effect of so many pronouncements about public service workers. Calls to the ACAS helpline amounted to 1.2 million last year, and the website is much praised by employers and employees because of its quality and impartiality.

The subject of poverty has been a theme that has threaded throughout my life. On the day of my introduction to this House, one of my cousins gave me a copy of a payslip belonging to our late grandfather, Arthur Howard. It was for £1.53, dated 11 November 1933, and came from New Monckton Collieries near Barnsley, where he worked for most of his life. He brought up four daughters on that wage, played the cello and built the first television in Worsbrough Common. He had no money but a wealth of talent and unfulfilled promise. My own parents taught me the value of work, education and caring for others.

After university, I worked at the Institute of Education in London for 33 years. I had become an assistant registrar at a very early age and was probably destined to be a registrar or secretary, or to fill a role with one of the newer titles in universities today. I was fortunate to work for the great Lionel Elvin, our director, who had been a member of both the Robbins and McNair committees, and then with Sir William Taylor. Both instilled in me the importance of teacher training and education. So what happened to change me from going in the direction of a potentially glittering university career?

The institute took a decision in 1969 not to give a pay rise to its clerical and library staff on the ground of affordability. Academics were given a pay rise. I decided that it was patently unfair to pick on the lower paid and helped to form a union branch of NALGO. No one had ever been in a union before. We lobbied the institute and were awarded our pay rise, backdated. I carried on recruiting members and for 16 years was privileged to represent all clerical and related staff in universities in their pay negotiations, and set up national pay scales for the first time.

Ninety per cent of the members were women and 90 per cent were first-generation trade union members. I spent most of my career boxing and coxing between my paid employment and my unpaid trade union activity. I moved within the institute to become permanent secretary of the students’ union and was licensee of the union bar for 16 years. I am aware that some noble Lords on different sides of the House have owned breweries, and it is possible that some of them have been their occasional customers, but I suspect that very few have actually been licensees.

2 After 13 years on the TUC General Council, I became its president. I would chair the General Council and then sometimes appear before the magistrates’ court to apply for an extension to opening hours in the students’ union bar. Such were the contrasts in my dual life.

In 1997, the continuing theme of poverty arose when I was appointed a founding member of the Low Pay Commission. This was an absolutely wonderful experience, and I like to think that my practical experience of wage

structures and the impact of low wages helped to set up a framework that is virtually intact today. We learnt that poverty is complex—a single mother in the south-east would have to earn over £17 an hour to make up any loss in benefits—yet we fixed on £3.60 an hour because the minimum wage cannot solve everything. We learnt that poverty is not a north/south or even a regional phenomenon. The largest proportion of low-paid workers, in terms of population, live in London and the south-east. We also learnt that the low paid need no lessons in hard work or the ability to calculate their earnings. Observing textile workers calculate their complex piece-rate earnings in their heads to the nearest penny would impress any mathematician.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in moving the regulations concerning the national minimum wage on Monday, was kind enough to say that the proposed increase for this October, “strikes the right balance between ensuring that low-paid workers are treated fairly and preventing adverse economic effects. It is based on sound evidence and consultation, and takes into account the present economic circumstances” —[Official Report, 19/7/10; col. 888.]

Those criteria were established at the start of the Low Pay Commission’s work, and it is gratifying to see that this evidence-based work continues and is appreciated by the Government.

I am aware of the recent short debate on poverty on 15 June, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, and of the excellent contributions that were made. It is not my intention to go over the same ground. I am aware that the measure for poverty might seem like a dry academic debate to some, but if an official poverty measure is changed, it can be used as a respectable excuse for taking away support systems from those who do not fit the new criteria. The Government have promised to maintain the target of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020, and I shall watch this with interest.

There are people now seeking work who are healthy and motivated and have a good employment history, but they cannot find work, so how will those with disabilities, language and literacy barriers or no work record find work? Joblessness is a scourge on any society and the Government will be judged on how many people are unemployed.

The margin between poverty and just about managing is perilously narrow. Cutting pennies here and there from benefits, VAT costs, pay and pensions may not seem a lot to those who are privileged to lead society, but together they will have a catastrophic outcome for individual families.

We are a country of extremes in income and no Government have solved that particular inequality. I make a plea to this Government that more work should be done on why we are a relatively low-wage society. Average earnings of £24,000 a year include paid overtime—mainly done by men—and City bonuses. That completely distorts the real situation. Just as we on the Low Pay Commission discovered, women who earned too little to pay national insurance did not appear on any statistics and could not therefore be counted as a group that might benefit from a national minimum wage. Clearly, steps were taken to rectify the Alice in Wonderland situation, but it shows that statistics without common sense and grounded reality can be used to hold back progress, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes not.

The Economist on 3 July stated: “The past decade made a disappointingly small dent in poverty, but it may be the best time the poor will know for many years”. I look for an assurance from Ministers that that grim forecast will not be realised.

In conclusion, I thank my two sponsors, my noble friends Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and Lord McKenzie of Luton for all their help and encouragement. I offer particular thanks to my noble friend Lord McKenzie for raising this topic today and for giving me an opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject about which I feel so passionately.

ДОДАТОК Б Інагураційне Звернення Президента Америки Барака Обами BarackObama’sInauguralAddress Published: January 20, 2009 PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you.

CROWD: Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!

My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.

I thank President Bush for his service to our nation... ... as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.

The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and wornout dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less.

It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.

Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died in places Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and KheSanh.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.

The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.

We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality... ... and lower its costs.

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

MR. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.

But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan.

With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet.

We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense.

And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.

And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

To those...

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.

And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.

We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.

And yet, at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.

It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break; the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours.

It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old.

These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.

What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence: the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall. And why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day in remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled.

In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river.

The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood.

At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words; with hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come; let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Thank you. God bless you.

And God bless the United States of America.

Додаток В Таблиця 1. Результати соціолінгвістичного дослідження політичних промов Інагураційне звертання Перша Промова кількість 100% % кількість 100% % 2401 1439 Числівники 3 1.2 26 1.8 326

2401

1.36

163

1439

1.1

2

2401

0.08

5

1439

Питання Прикметник и

93

2401

6.46

150

1439

0.3 5 6.2 5

Прислівники

38

2401

1.58

29

1439

2

31

2401

1.29

20

1439

1.4 1

388

2401

251

1439

131

2401

16.1 6 5.46

102

1439

17.

4 7.0

Дієслова

Модальні дієслова Іменники Артиклі

Займенники

230

2401

9.58

94

1439

Us, we

85

230

37

7

94

I, you

20

230

8.7

29

94

Ввічливі директиви (let’s)

5

2401

0.2

0

1439

9 6.5 3 7.4 5 30.

9 0

Кількість слів в Інагураційній промові Президента Барака Обами 2008 року -2401 Кількість слів в Першій Промові Баронеси Донаг’ю 2010 року -1439

Chapter I 1.1. Gender Gender is a basic organising category of our social structure … People’s social identity and self-evaluation are derived from knowledge of their perceived membership in social groups and from the perceived evaluation of those groups by the contrast groups. The language variety associated with a social group is usually a high salient dimension of a

group’s identity…Through speech style shifts, individuals work at establishing and communicating their distinctiveness.

Differences in gender behavior are generally thought to be due to nurture rather than nature. Childhood socialization is different for men and women and has correspondingly different effects on personal style and behavior. As children develop, family, literature, school, games, and toys socialize them towards fulfilling societal gender roles.

Tannen (1990) comments that boys prefer to play outside, in large hierarchical groups.

The groups have winners and losers and leaders who give orders. Boys jockey for position in the group by joke-telling and seeking centre stage. Tannen (1990) suggests that this childhood experience prepares men well for the cut and thrust of business life. And in modern society, these aggressive qualities are manifested as assertion in the public realm through politics, a domain which provides men the opportunity to compete, persuade, and dictate. [19,с.83] Women’s socialisation is different; girls favour small groups or dyads and focus on developing closeness. Their games tend not to have winners or losers and they do not give orders, preferring instead to offer suggestions. Being liked or popular in the group is a girl’s main concern. Giles et al. detail the development of gender specific socialisation (cited in Kramarae, 1981): Humans are from birth actively trying to make sense of their environment by categorising themselves and their world. [8,с.78] By adulthood an individual has firmly established a gender-centric cultural distinctiveness, expressed primarily through communication.

Pearson et al. (1985) concluded that, “Men are viewed as instrumental, task oriented, aggressive, assertive, ambitious and achievement oriented. Women … are viewed as relational, socioemotional, caring, nurturing, affiliative and expressive”.[15,с.122] Women seem to focus not only on the information being imparted, but also on communicating the information in a manner that will strengthen a relationship; in Tannen’s words “rapport talk”. Men focus on the information that is being conveyed “report talk”, and at times use communication to enhance their position in a group. [19,с.148]

The language variety associated with a social group is usually a high salient dimension of a group’s identity. Through speech style shifts, individuals work at establishing and communicating their distinctiveness.

1.2. Gender Stereotypes in Language Gender differences in language use have been studied for many years; however, general consensus has not been fully reached to date on the generalizability of the observed differences, i.e. to what extent do the differences depend on the communicative context [2,с.1].

Tannen commented that, in a mixed gender group, females are more likely to converge toward a masculine style of communication, which would lead us to expect that in Parliament women would speak in similar ways to men and that, given the pressures to conform, any change in genre is remarkable [19,с.154].

In addition, human language adaptation behavior complicates the understanding of gender differences in language use. The communication accommodation theory literature suggests that people may subconsciously adapt their language styles to converge with their communicative partners’ styles to gain social approval [8,с.46].

In our study, we’ve proved this theory by finding masculine rhetoric in the First Speech of Baronessa Donaghy made in British Parliament and some features of

feminine

language in the Inaugural Address of Barack Obama.

The purpose for which language is used also differs by gender. Tannen claims men use language to enhance their hierarchical position in a group and women use language to enhance relationships. [19,с.165] Lakoff described what she called “women’s language” suggesting that women differ from men in the usage of ten characteristics: specialised vocabulary, expletives, empty adjectives, tag questions, intonation, superpolite forms, hedges, hypercorrect grammar, and joke-telling humour [11,с.16].

The use of women’s language to establish rapport leads to the inclusion of certain characteristics in women’s discourse. Women tend to avoid conflict in communication preferring to offer suggestions rather than commands (Aries, 1987). Women tend to use

language that is more animated, descriptive, open, attentive and friendly, whereas men tend to use language that is more dominant, less expressive and more contentious (Pruett, 1989) [13,с.4].

Topics characteristically addressed by men and women also differ, suggesting that some topics are more commonly addressed by one gender than the other. Aries (1987) concluded that women focus heavily on personal issues involving disclosure of feelings, relationships, family, friends, lovers and home life more than men. Men talk little on these topics. Andrews (1987), writing on gender differences in persuasive communication, noted women focus onfamily themes and maintenance of family relationships more than men.

Crawford and Chaffin (1987) noted that males are more likely to choose the topic in a mixed gender group. Other research has suggested that women hold conversations about people and relationships, while men speak on work, money and sports (Bischoping, 1993; Leaper, 1987; Bate, 1988). [13,с.5].

Reported differences in some aspects of language use appear to be context dependent (Crawford, 1995; Kramare, 1981), or in Bakhtin’s terms, subject to “genre rules”, and poses the possibility that one reason why distinctive women’s language is not found consistently in all research is that women adapt more than men to the expectations of the setting, institution or genre in the same way as minority groups do if they wish to avoid being noticed as “different” [1,с.6].

Sociolinguists have categorized masculine speech as competitive, argumentative, antagonistic, and insulting. For example, studies have shown that men use interruptions to portray power and control, and strong expletives to demonstrate bravery and aggression.

They also use commands (Give me, I need) to show leadership, and non-inclusive pronouns (I, you, me) to exhibit dominance [12,с.8].

By contrast, biological features and evolutionary pressures cause women to be nurturing and cooperative.

Sociolinguists have characterized female language as emotional,

pleasing, supportive and conciliatory. For example, studies have proven that women use hedges (I wonder, you know), tag questions (isn’t it? Larner 10 can’t you?), and inclusive pronouns (we, us) to invite addressees into conversations. In addition, they give minimal responses to show support and attentiveness. They use suggestions (let’s) and weaker

expletives (dear me, oh goodness) to maintain respect, and they weaken their statements with adverbials (maybe, probably) and modal verbs (may, could) to maintain equality and receive approval [12,с.9].

1.3. Political speech has been an important subject for studies on gender and professional discourse. Political language has long been considered to be masculine, and female politicians have been expected to conform to this normative masculine style[4,с.9].

On August 6, 1920, after an eighty year struggle to break into the public sphere, women got suffrage in the United States. If to speak about the United Kingdom, women were prohibited from voting until the 1832 Reform Act and the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act, although it would not be until 1872 that it would become a national movement.

Yet, with the right to vote came increasing opportunities to run for office, and women faced the challenge of figuring out how to speak in public.

Campbell labeled the concept of feminine rhetoric, based on an analysis of speeches by fifteen female reformists advancing social movements from 1840 to 1920. She outlined its characteristics and suggested its function as a solution to the ‘double bind’ and a rhetorical tool for women to advance their social agendas in the public sphere. [4,с.14] Looking back through the twentieth century, many studies document women using feminine rhetoric as a tool to emphasize their feminine strengths. For example, Benze and DeClercq established that women are twice as likely as men to use feminine rhetoric to stress compassion, warmth, honesty, and morality, thereby making their perceived strengths more salient [12,с.13].

DeRosa and Bystrom showed that women used personal tone in 94 percent of their 1996 Presidential National Convention speeches, addressed the audience as peers in 69 percent, emphasized their experience through personal anecdotes in 63 percent, and used inductive reasoning in 59 percent [12,с.14].

Bystrom et al. found that female U.S. Senatorial candidates mostly used logical appeals and stressed their own accomplishments in spot ads for mixed-gender races from 1992 to 2002.The evidence is contradictory because masculine and feminine rhetorical styles are both beneficial techniques. Studies even document women combining them. For example,

although DeRosa and Bystrom found that many women gave personal and inclusive speeches using anecdotes and inductive reasoning, they also used expert references and impersonal examples[12,с.15].

As described above, masculine traits and language inherently thrive in the public realm and help fulfill political aims. Hence, men have a consistent and unimpeded rhetorical history of public persuasion dating back to ancient Greece.

To no surprise, Benze and DeClercq found that men are three times more likely than women to use masculine rhetoric as a tool because it primes their political strengths, including knowledge, leadership, experience, and toughness[12,с.17].

Indeed, men emphasize their own experiences and use deductive reasoning, exercise more logical appeals and statistical evidence, and stress their own accomplishments.

Jamieson also proposes that feminine rhetoric that fosters intimate relationships helps men politicians appear caring and credible in ways that statistics and cliché phrases cannot [12,с.18].

Most constituents judge the President’s legitimacy based on what kind of man he is, rather than the programs or acts he espouses. Thus, personal narratives move constituents to conclude that they know, like, and trust the President because they feel they have shared intimate moments with him.

Ronald Reagan effectively used personal narratives to

sidetrack charges of incipient senility by refocusing the citizens’ attention to his positive attributes: his caring and understanding nature. Self-disclosure is also useful, as some constituents even consider the President as more genuine and reliable when they feel they know him, period.

Furthermore, Huddy and Terkildsen agree that a warm politician (perceived as such from the feminine rhetoric he uses) can more effectively deal with compassionate political issues[12,с.19].

Last, according to the speech accommodation theory, a speaker can adjust his speech style to resemble that of his addressees to reduce dissimilarities between them, which helps him win approval, appear cooperative, and produce a more understandable message.

Women’s parliamentary communication style and culture also encompass women’s topic, or issue, focus. Investigating the experience and expectations of women candidates

in the 1982 Victorian state election, Sawer (1988a) found women covered the “soft” issues: child-care, equal opportunity, abortion, education, environmental, and care for the aged. More recently, as women’s numbers in Parliament have increased there has been an increase in social issues under debate (Coopers & Lybrand, 1994). In general, women are given the soft ministerial portfolios, rarely are they ministers for defence, law, or the economy (Coopers & Lybrand, 1994). In Sweden, Hedlund (1988) found that women politicians were perceived as representing the interests of women voters better than men, and that as they themselves get older, women’s interest focus changed from children to a focus on the elderly and handicapped [13,с.6].

Thus, it seems that women in Parliament will be pulled in several directions: towards the speech styles and topics engendered by their socialisation; towards the expectations of the setting and the genre of a male-dominated institution; and towards the discourse they encountered in their socialisation as adults in their professions, jobs, and the climb up the ranks of their political party.

Throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, more and more women are succeeding politics, and it is likely because they found a rhetorical style that reconciled everyone’s competing expectations. This helps them realize they are equal participants of the speaker’s decision-making process who have valued opinions and the ability to enact change [12,с.14].

Conclusion to Chapter I Дослідивши позицію науковців щодо гендерної різниці взагалі та, безпосередньо, в мовленні (зокрема, політичних промовах), ми прийшли до висновку, що: Men’s moral reasoning tended to emphasize competing rights and give primacy to the individual, while women’s moral reasoning put the emphasis on conflicting responsibilities and treated relationships as primary.

Applied to the realm of politics, this contrast in moral reasoning suggests that women will be more sceptical of market solutions than men and will be more willing to endorse government intervention on behalf of the needy. The implication is that these sex

differences will persist regardless of material circumstances, sector of employment, or adult roles.

Feminine rhetoric was introduced into politics by women who were struggling to communicate and succeed in a sphere dominated by men and characterized by aggression and competition. Since, it has become a rhetorical tool that should be used by men or women to achieve many objectives necessary to prevail in politics.

In sum, scholars have termed “masculine rhetoric” as language that is useful for men to achieve the biological and social goals associated with their masculine identity, such as taking aggressive stands, initiating action, affirming expertise, handling competition, and persuading. However, these scholars have recently introduced the idea that masculine rhetoric can also be used by women who wish to complete these same endeavors (for example, in business or political settings). Therefore, masculine language is not just an expression of the masculine identity, but a rhetorical tool to achieve certain objectives.

Likewise, what scholars have termed “feminine rhetoric” is appropriate to express feelings and maintain group harmony, and parallels the soft and ornamental feminine identity. But it too is not just an expression of femininity identity or exclusive to women, but a rhetorical tool that can be used by men or women seeking to soothe, please, garner respect, and unify addressees to each other and the speaker.

Chapter II. 2.1. Особливості політичних промов в англомовних країнах An Inaugural Address, given by the President-elect at the Inauguration Ceremony (which formally marks the beginning of his term) also accomplishes many goals beyond the primary one of accepting the oath of office of the Presidency. It serves to appreciate American values rooted in tradition, invite consideration for future guiding principles, accept the executive limits of the President position, and acknowledge subordination to the people’s will. These objectives all foster the overarching goal of uniting the citizenry and soliciting their support. [1,с.31] Presidents-elect must use Inaugurals unify the citizenry as ‘the people,’ who have been divided by a hard-fought presidential election campaign. Simultaneously, the speech

becomes an opportunity to harmonize a public divided from any other circumstances.

[10,с.32-33] For example, Barack Obama used his Inaugural Address to reconcile “Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers”, “men and women and children of every race and every face[20,с.2].

First, Presidents- elect pursue unification by emphasizing shared traditions and experiences. Presidents-elect re-categorize the citizenry as Americans by reminding them of their common suffering and common achievements in the face of challenges in the past, their membership to a united nation, and their spiritual strength capable of transcending any shallow differences. They recall great events that have defined the nation to show how fruitless are temporary material divisions in the context of a greater history, harmony and faith. [10,с.34] Speakers can fulfill these tasks by using a sincere tone, discussing shared experiences, validating audience emotions, and providing descriptive anecdotes that recall the past in a way everyone can relive in the present, which are all components of feminine rhetoric. [10,с.29,30] Second, Presidents-elect use Inaugurals to unify the audience by setting forth principles for their presidency that call upon, stress, and recommit the nation to timeless American values. They remind Americans of their loyalty to common democratic principles, and assure that as the President, they will continue to advocate them as well.

They thereby contextualize everyone’s personal ideals within the greater goal of American nationalism. Again, recollection through narrative and persuasion along moral grounds, characteristic of feminine rhetoric, should be most useful. Furthermore, the Presidents-elect propose their principles for contemplation, not as practices for action [10,с.39-41]. Therefore, inductive structure and audience empowerment, techniques of feminine language, are inclusive and useful for inviting the nation to evaluate and hopefully support the proposals.

Last, Inaugural Addresses connect the Presidents-elect to their constituents. Presidentselect understand that they were elected by and are representative of the citizenry, and are bound by its will and mercy. The citizenry must accept the President selects’ outlined principles, ratify their ascents to power, and approve their oaths. Therefore, the politicians

use Inaugurals to acknowledge they understand their subservient positions and commitments to serving the people [10,с.33]. Barack Obama stated: “I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed…” manifestation of the will of a great and free people.” They also emphasize that they are joined to their constituents through shared obedience to identical national principles and laws. As Barack Obama declared, “ We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more…” [20,с.2].

Finally, the presidents-elect elicit from the people respect and trust as a leader, not by exuding superiority, but by reassuring citizens they are merely a guide, limited by the Constitution and the democratic ideals it embodies, and sure against abusing their executive powers. [10,с.42] We hypothesize that because female rhetoric is inclusive and conciliatory, it should be used to achieve these ends as well. This process requires using nurturing and sincere tons, providing moral arguments, detailing shared experiences, and encouraging the audience to evaluate government, which are characteristics of the feminine style. Since the Inaugural’s main purposes are most effectively communicated through feminine rhetoric, we hypothesize that Barack Obama will use much of it in his Inagural Address.

A First Speech is defined as: “The first speech made by a Member following his or her first election to the House … normally … during the Address in Reply debate ...There is a convention in the House that a first speech is heard without interjections or interruptions … . In return for this courtesy the Member should not be unduly provocative.” [12,с.1] The first time a newly elected MP speaks in Parliament is known as a maiden speech.

By tradition, the Member is called ahead of other MPs who may have indicated their wish to speak at the same time. A maiden speech is usually uncontroversial, fairly short and contains a tribute to the MP's predecessor and favourable remarks about the constituency.

It is also a tradition that a maiden speech is heard without interruption and for any speeches that may follow, to praise the new MP's first contribution. In the House of Lords a Member making a maiden speech will do so in a debate with a speakers' list so that the House and, in particular the next speaker, may know that conventional courtesies apply.

The maiden speech is expected to be short and uncontroversial and would not express views that would provoke an interruption. [21, с.4] In Parliament, as in society generally, there is a tension between forces for change and pressures to retain the modes of the past. On the one hand, because genres are sensitive to changes in culture, it is reasonable to expect that the presence of women will eventually influence parliamentary speech genres. Hence, women’s use of the genre -- language usage, style and topic focus -- in First Speeches might be expected to differ from that of men although, until the percentage of women in Parliament rises, one would expect the differences to be slight as women tried consciously to adapt to established genres [18].

In preparing his or her “First Speech” a parliamentarian would seek advice and look at other examples of this genre to discover the special rules of “first speeches”: for example, that they are not interrupted - and that in deference to this rule such speeches should not be unduly controversial.

Hedlund (1988) claimed that the “culture” of women could affect their style and the issues they preferred to discuss. Hedlund also noted that the forms of discussion developed within the private sphere of the women’s culture are based on dialogue and the need to listen to the other side. This way of talking is difficult to practice in political debate[12,с.7].

Similarly, in women’s style is seen as being more consultative, accepting consensus as a win rather than a back down. For example, Baroness Donaghy stated: “ I am aware that the measure for poverty might seem like a dry academic debate to some, but if an official poverty measure is changed, it can be used as a respectable excuse for…” [17,с.2].

Ironically, this perception can create a conflict of roles for a woman in Parliament between expectations of her performance as a woman and as a politician.

Even if women did bring a particular way of speaking or communicating with them to Parliament one might expect them to be also aware of the existing political speech genre and not attempt to change it radically. They are, after all, the “new kids on the block”, the minority, and as Bakhtin notes, “one observes an extreme differentiation of speech genres and styles depending on the title, class, rank, wealth, social importance of the addressee and the relative position of the speaker” [1,с.24].

So one would expect, following Bakhtin, that women’s First Speeches would be similar to men’s, because one would not expect them to change the genre quickly or radically.

Hence, although women’s use of the genre -- language usage, style and topic focus -- in First Speeches to the House of Lords might be expected to differ from those of men at first one would expect the differences to be slight as women try consciously to adapt.

In our study we've found some evidences that these purposes are most effectively communicated through masculine rhetoric.

First, Members of Parliament use their First Speeches to justify their party’s legitimization and supporters’ faith that they are qualified to take the nomination. They must prove they are noble, wise, and fit to represent their party. Sometimes, this is accomplished using autobiography. Although biography is characteristic of feminine rhetoric, it is self-focused in this case and used to prove competence. In addition, many times they use autobiography to compare themselves with their opponents and prove they are more qualified for the job. For example, Daroness Donaghy in her First Speech says: “..for 16 years I was privileged to represent all clerical and related staff in universities in their pay negotiations, and set up national pay scales for the first time.” [17,с.2] Therefore, components of masculine rhetoric, including competitive and confident tones, references to self-expertise and experience, and mentions of their future plans should be useful. For example, Baroness Donaghy declared: “The Government have promised to maintain the target of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020, and I shall watch this with interest.” [17,с.3] Second, Members use First Speeches to assume the role of party leader– commanding, confident, and prepared. Assuming leadership means taking control of the party’s campaign, giving directions regarding how the contest will proceed, and outlining the political agenda that they will emphasize. For example, Baroness Donaghy promises: “I make a plea to this Government that more work should be done on …I look for an assurance from Ministers that that grim forecast will not be realized.” [17,с.3] Making such assertions requires using instructive language, referencing self -expertise, and emphasizing future plans, which the masculine style achieves. Accordingly, studying The First Speech of Baroness Donaghy, we have suggested that masculine rhetoric, which

is confident, competitive, and commanding, is most useful for communicating these purposes. Therefore, we hypothesize that there should be more masculine rhetoric in speeches of this genre than in Inaugural Addresses.

2.3. Лексико-граматичні особливості англомовних політичних промов The first лексико- граматична одиниця we observed and analyzed in our study is questions, or expressions of inquiry that invite a reply. Questions signal that an idea is not absolute and therefore provide opportunities for collaboration. Sensibly, studies have found that questions are more characteristic of the feminine repertoire. First, questions maintain audience involvement. They can invite listeners to participate in the conversation or at least encourage independent thought[11,с.27].

Second, questions promote equality between the speaker and audience. They demote the speaker because he maybe requesting information and showing uncertainty, or requesting an opinion and not committing to his assertion. Instead, questions empower the audience by admitting the members have information the speaker may lack, or by requesting the listeners’ approval and providing them the option to re-interpret or disagree with a statement [11,с.29].

For example, in Barack Obama’s 2008 Inaugural Address, he declares: “The question we ask today is not whether our government…, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs…”(див. Додаток 2) Therefore, we hypothesize that questions should be more prevalent in Inaugural Address. Наступні лексико- граматичні одиниці, які ми досліджували, це- іменник, числівник та артикль. З лінгвістичної точки зору, чоловіки мають тенденцію вживати більше артиклів, іменників, довгих слів та числівників (Koppel et al., 2003; Newman et al., 2008). Ці відмінності загально прийнято вважати лінгвістичними інструментами чоловіків для інструментальної мети- передачі інформації (Tannen, 1990; Newman et al., 2008), або, іншими словами, чоловіки говорять про предмети та об’єкти [2,с.1] .

We assume, Baroness Donaghy will use more іменників numbers та артиклів in her Maiden speech than Barack Obama.

The fifth category is adverbials, or words that make the ideas or proposals put forth less definite. These words, such as maybe, perhaps, and relatively minimize imposition, mitigate the force of a statement, or call for joint collaboration by alludingto the flexibility and vagueness of a belief or plan.151Accordingly, previous studies have found adverbials to be characteristic of feminine language.

Therefore, we hypothesize that Inaugural Addresses will have more of them.

The sixth лексико- граматична одиниця is modal verbs, which express the degree of possibility or necessity of a belief or event. Modal verbs convey indecisiveness and reluctance.155They mitigate commanding phrases, which allows speakers to assert their personal beliefs and wishes without being aggressive or demanding. In turn, speakers’ beliefs and wishes appear more flexible, so audiences feel they are part of the decisionmaking or opinion-forming process, and a climate of interpersonal closeness naturally generates [11,с.29].

Therefore, studies have shown that they are characteristic of feminine language and we hypothesize that more of them will be used in Inaugural Addresses.

The sevenhth category in our study is pronouns, or words that replace nouns. A higher percentage of pronouns was seen as a strong female language indicator in many previous studies (Biber, Koppel) [2,с.7]. Specifically, we looked at such pronouns as us and we, which are personal pronouns that refer to the audience and speaker as one entity. Scholars have found that feminine language incorporates more such pronouns than masculine language because they help express a relationship with listeners by inviting their participation in thought or collaboration in action. [11,с.32]Отже, за нашою гіпотезою, Барак Обама буде вживати більше таких займенників, ніж Баронеса Донаг’ю.

The second category is pronouns, such as I and you, which create distance between the speaker and audience by alluding that their positions are separate. For example, I highlights the speaker’s ownership over certain actions or ideas as well as leadership. You subordinates the audience as subservient. Scholars have found that these pronouns are more characteristic of masculine language because they create hierarchy and enforce authority. [11,с.33]

Considering this literature, we speculate that First Speeches will include more of these pronouns., whereas Inaugurals will include more inclusive pronouns.

The eighth лексико- граматична одиниця is directives, or speech acts that try to get another to do something. [11,с.34] Mitigated directives solicit action in a more polite manner, by taking the form of requests and proposals for future behavior.171They hedge the force of commands. Some mitigated directives, like I ask you to join me, incorporate the language of questions, and give the audience an opportunity to reject them, thereby establishing a more symmetrical relationship between the speaker and audience. Others, such as We could join, utilize inclusive pronouns to acknowledge the speaker and audience as cooperating agents of action, motivated by causes that will benefit them both. [11,с.35] Sensitive and collaborative, studies have affirmed that this subtype is used more by women and is more characteristic of feminine language. [11,с.35] Therefore, we predict that Inaugural Addresses should contain more mitigated directives.

The ninth лексико- граматична одиниця is verbs. Women have been found to use more verbs(Koppel et al., 2003; Newmanet al., 2008) as women are more likely to make social connections through language communication (Tannen, 1990; Newman et al., 2008). So, we suggest there will be more verbs in Inaugural Speech [2,с.1].

2.4. Специфіка інавгураційної промови Барака Обами та першої промови Баронеси Донаг’ю After analyzing the Inaugurals and Acceptances for the feminine and masculine sociolinguistic, we were able to discern whether there was more feminine rhetoric in Inaugural Addresses and more masculine rhetoric in First Speeches by analyzing the differences in percentages of each variable between the two speech types. The takeaway finding for the feminine rhetoric variables was consistent with our hypothesis: Inaugurals contained more of feminine rhetoric variables than First Speeches- of masculine rhetoric. (див. Додаток 3) Найбільша відмінність була відмічена у вживанні займенників. Той факт, що жінка-політик вжила менше займенників, ніж чоловік, вражаючий, позаяк вживання займенників розглядалось як сильний жіночий мовленнєвий показник в попередніх

дослідженнях (e.g. Biber et al., 1998; Koppel et al., 2003). Вплив контексту може пояснити нижчий відсоток вживання займенників Баронесою Донаг’ю, тому що Парламентські промови зазвичай добре підготовані в формі надрукованих текстів, а зменшена кількість займенників– це загальний показник, який характеризує письмову форму. (Biber, 1988) [2,с.7]. Президент і Баронеса також відрізняються використанням різних частин мови. Баронеса вживала більше іменників, числівників, прислівників, модальних дієслів, іменників та артиклів. Всі ці частини мови, окрім модальних дієслів, є ознаками чоловічої моделі мовлення. Президент використав більше дієслів, прикметників та займенників, всі з яких

є показниками жіночої риторики. Такий результат

суперечить дослідженням Бібера і може відображати впевненість політиків в тому, що певні риторичні інструменти протилежної статі є більш корисними для досягнення цілей під час проголошення їхніх промов. Також, ми окремо підрахували вживання таких займенників, як Us та We, I та You і отримали результат, який підтвердив нашу гіпотезу щодо цілей, з якими політики вживають їх. Займенники Us та We можуть бути самим очевидним та зрозумілим засобом для об’єднання нації задля підтримки Президента та його планів, а також спільної допомоги в їх реалізації, що так необхідно для Інагураційних звернень. В той же час, займенники I та You можуть бути самим очевидним та найбільш зрозумілим засобом для створенням спікером ієрархії та відділення себе (I), як експерта та лідера, від аудиторії (you), як від його послідовників, що так важливо при проголошенні Перших Промов у Парламенті. За результатами нашого дослідження Президент Барак Обама використав 4 із 6 лексико-граматичних

одиниць,

притаманних

жіночій

риториці

(дієслова,

прикметники, займенники, ввічливі директиви) і жодної- чоловічій. Це достатньо вагомий аргумент для того, щоб стверджувати, що жіноча риторика вігідна чоловікам- політикам. (див. Додаток 3) Баронеса Донаг’ю вжила 4 з 4 соціолінгвістичних варіатив, притаманних чоловічій риториці (числівники, прислівники, артиклі,іменники) та 2-жіночій (питання, модальні дієслова). Такий результат дає нам можливість стверджувати, що

Баронеса також максимально використала елементи чоловічої риторики, при цьому ефективно вживаючи і жіночі елементи мовлення. Ми спостерігаємо приклад «подвійного переплетіння», про яке говорить Кембел. Отримані результати співпадають з більшістю висунутих нами гіпотез: Перша Промова містить 67% чоловічої риторики, в той час як Інагураційне Звернення Барака Обами- 100%-жіночої.

Alternatively, variables that went against the takeaway results did not have a significant enough impact to affect them and should not be given as much weight. This may reflect that the usage of such variables was not methodical, and that Presidents do not consider them to be useful rhetoric tools, if considering them at all, when crafting their speeches. Of course, specific words (from any category) may have been selected by the speaker or may affect the listeners subconsciously, but the results show which aspects of feminine and masculine language are more or less likely to have been methodically chosen to accomplish the different speeches’ goals.

These trends show that some aspects of feminine rhetoric are still associated with and considered useful to Inaugurals, and that some aspects of masculine rhetoric are still associated with and considered useful to the First Speeches.

Last, the data highlights that feminine rhetoric may be considered more beneficial than masculine rhetoric in politics, regardless of the speech type. Висновки до розділу 2 Дослідивши літературу про Інагураційні промови Президентів США та Перші Промови членів Британського Парламенту, ми прийшли до висновку: The politicians use Inaugurals to acknowledge they understand their subservient positions and commitments to serving the people.

Women politicians try to arouse messages in their First Speeches that help them assume leadership and tend to make them as persuasive as possible. Ми ознайомились з типовими соціолінгвістичними варіативами, притаманними жіночому та чоловічому дискурсу. Ми висунули гіпотези, основна ідея яких полягала в тому, що Президент Америки Барак Обама буде використовувати в

Інагураційній Промові жіночу риторику, в той час як Баронеса Донаг’ю в Першій Промові в Британському Парламенті- чоловічу. Провівши соціолінгвістичний аналіз, ми прийшли до висновку, що Президент використовував більше жіночої риторики, ніж Баронеса- чоловічої. Такий результат дає нам змогу

стверджувати, що жіноча модель мовлення більш вигідна для

використання чоловіками- політиками в своїх промовах, ніж чоловіча- для жінок. Той факт, що Президент вжив такі соціолінгвістичні компоненти, притаманні жіночому мовлення, як дієслова, прикметники, займенники, інтенсифікатори, ввічливі директиви зі значною перевагою в порівнянні з вживанням цих самих компонентів Баронесою, підтвердив нашу гіпотезу про те, що жіноча модель мовлення використовується в Інагураційному Звертанні Президента для об’єднання нації з метою подальшого досягнення своїх цілей та кооперації, створення дружніх відносин з громадянами своєї країни (we, us, each other, our, ours, ourselves, us, we), а також спільної допомоги в їх реалізації та демонстрації поваги (let us). Вживання Баронесою Донаг’ю таких чоловічих варіатив, як числівники, прислівники, артиклі, іменники з великою перевагою, порівняно з Інагураційною Промовою Президента Америки, підтверджує нашу гіпотезу про те, що деякі аспекти чоловічої риторики корисні жінкам- політикам для підтвердження своїх лідерських здібностей- впевненості та домінантності (I, me, mine, my, myself), та командирських якостей (you, your, yours, yourself, yourselves ).

Використання

Баронесою числівників як інструментального засобу передачі інформації з великою перевагою в порівнянні з звертанням Президента підтверджує її бажання здаватись більш переконливою та ґрунтовно підготованою до виступу. ВИСНОВКИ Feminine rhetoric was introduced into politics by women who were struggling to communicate and succeed in a sphere dominated by men and characterized by aggression and competition. Since, it has become a rhetorical tool that should be used by men or women to achieve many objectives necessary to prevail in politics. Any studies that support this idea, such as this one, contribute to proving that there is a role for feminine language to be used by men in politics.

We conducted the sociolinguistic experiments to determine whether there was a role for feminine rhetoric in men politicians’ discourse and masculine rhetoric in women’s.

Sociolinguistic scholars have suggested that feminine rhetoric fosters unity, cooperation, and intimacy between speakers and addressees. We wanted to investigate whether feminine rhetoric is also considered useful when men politicians wish to unify, include, and build relationships with his audience. We hypothesized that if it is, feminine rhetoric should be used in Inaugural Address, because this speech genre’s main purposes are to transcend differences and unify through common ideals and experiences, which scholars have suggested feminine rhetoric accomplishes. To give contrast for comparison to our findings, we also analyzed the First Speech in British Parliament, whose main purposes are the opposite: for the woman-politician to prove her expertise, display leadership, and stir competition, which scholars have suggested masculine rhetoric accomplishes. If feminine language is useful to achieve an Inaugural’s speech purposes, we proposed it should be found in Inaugurals. As a corollary experiment, we also analyzed the First Speech for masculine rhetoric, and hypothesized that it should be used in First Speeches.

To investigate our queries, we performed a quantative analysis of the First Speech of Baroness Donaghy and Inaugural Address of Barack Obama, for masculine and feminine sociolinguistic rhetoric.

Overall, our hypotheses proved correct: there was a lot of feminine rhetoric in Inaugural Address and masculine rhetoric was present in the First Speech. Some variables had a stronger affect on these trends, which implies they may be considered more effective gendered rhetorical tools for accomplishing objectives in line with the distinct speech purposes. This information illustrates which variables politicians should incorporate in their different speeches.

However, our research presents a new idea that feminine (and masculine) language can helpful rhetorical tools for achieving different political speech genres’ purposes and that feminine rhetoric, specifically, should be considered for use in political speech. Our research also reinforces the suggestions that there are many other influences affecting the use of gendered rhetoric. Determining what these other factors may be is beyond the scope of this thesis, but provides a prospect for future research.

Some of the factors are ideas that have been put forth as theories, and our hope is that this research will prompt others to test these theories. Other political offices and speech types may provide useful case studies.

СПИСОК ВИКОРИСТАНИХ ДЖЕРЕЛ

1.

Bakhtin, M.N. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (V.W. Mc Gee, Trans.). (C. Emerson, M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

2.

Bei Yu (2013) Language and gender in Congressional speech: Syracuse University,

USA 3.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating

Language Structure and Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

4.

Campbell, Man 1989.; Dow.

5.

Coopers & Lybrand. (1994). Women and Parliaments in Australia and New

Zealand. Report for the Commonwealth-State Ministers Conference on the Status of Women. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

6.

Elshtain, Jean Bethke (1984) “Reclaiming the Socialist-Feminist Citizen”,

Socialist Review74 (14): 23-30 7.

Gidengil, Elisabeth (1995) “Economic Man-Social Woman? The Case of the Gender

Gap in Support for the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement,” Comparative Political Studies28(3): 384-408.

8.

Giles, H. and Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and Consequences.

Florence, Y: Wadsworth Publishing.

9.

Gilligan, Carol (1982) In A Different VoiceCambridge, MA.: Harvard University

Press.

10.

Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Presidents Creating the

Presidency: Deeds Done in Words (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008) Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York, NY: Harper Colophon Books.

11.

Lindsay R. Larner (2009). The Role of Feminine Rhetoric in Male Presidential

Discourse: Achieving Speech Purpose: University of Pennsylvania 12.

Mary R. Power, Michelle Berardone (1998). Speaking in Parliament : first speeches

of men and women: Bond University

13.

O’Neill, Brenda (1995) “The Gender Gap: Re-Evaluating Theory and Method,’ in

Sandra Burt and Lorraine Code, eds., Changing Methods: Feminists Transforming PracticePeterborough: Broadview, 327-56.

14.

Pearson, J. C., Turner, L. H., & Todd-Mancillas, W. (1985). Gender and

communication. (2nd Ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown.

15.

Pratto, Felicia, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Jim Sidanius (1997) “The Gender Gap:

Differences in Political Attitudes and Social Dominance Orientation.”

16.

Phelan, Shane (1990) “Feminism and Individualism,” Women & Politics 10(4): 1-18

17.

Joanna Davies and Louisa Bentley (2010). Maiden Speeches: The House of Lords

Library note: 2-4 18.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation.

New York, NY: HarperCollins.

19.

20.

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/maiden-speech/ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?

pagewanted=all&_r=0